Background
On June 30, 2023, police arrested Zachary Boyce following a call reporting commotion at a residence. Boyce had prior juvenile felony adjudications that counted toward his offender score under then-applicable law (giving violent juvenile felonies 1 point and nonviolent juvenile adjudications ½ point).
On May 11, 2023—before Boyce’s arrest—the legislature enacted Engrossed House Bill 1324, amending RCW 9.94A.525 to eliminate most juvenile felony adjudications from offender score calculations. The amendment took effect July 23, 2023. In December 2023, Boyce pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and felony harassment with intent to kill, reserving the right to appeal the inclusion of his juvenile adjudications in his offender score.
The trial court sentenced Boyce using an offender score of 5 that included his prior juvenile felony adjudications, applying the law in effect when he committed the offense (June 2023) rather than the new law effective July 23, 2023.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentencing calculation. The court held that RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b), the newly amended statute, does not apply retroactively because the legislature failed to include explicit language conveying retroactive intent. Two statutes—RCW 9.94A.345 and RCW 10.01.040 (the savings clause)—require defendants to be sentenced under the law in effect when the offense was committed. The legislature may override this result by including language in the amended statute that “fairly conveys” retroactive intent, but no such language appears in the amendment here.
The court rejected Boyce’s argument that the statute is remedial and therefore presumptively retroactive. It held that the general rule favoring retroactive application of remedial statutes does not apply when a statute is subject to the savings clause. An amendment to a penal statute, even one that is patently remedial, must apply prospectively absent language indicating contrary intent.
The court also declined to apply a “precipitating event” analysis under which the statute would apply retroactively because the precipitating event (sentencing) occurred after enactment. Such analysis applies only to amendments affecting attorney fees and costs, not substantive sentencing provisions.
Key Takeaways
- Newly favorable sentencing amendments do not apply retroactively unless the legislature explicitly provides for retroactive application.
- The savings clause (RCW 10.01.040) prevents retroactive application of penal statutes absent clear legislative intent, even when the statute is remedial in nature.
- Courts look to the statutory text itself for expressions of retroactive intent, not to legislative findings or statements of purpose outside the statutory amendment.
- Washington appellate courts have consistently rejected retroactive application arguments in this context across multiple recent decisions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that defendants whose sentences were imposed under prior law cannot benefit from subsequently enacted favorable sentencing reforms unless the legislature explicitly mandates retroactive application. Given the proliferation of criminal justice reform legislation nationwide, this holding significantly limits the practical impact of such reforms for individuals already sentenced under earlier standards.
The decision also clarifies that legislative intent must be expressed in the statutory text itself, not merely in preambles or findings. Defendants and advocates seeking retroactive application of sentencing improvements must urge the legislature to include clear retroactivity language—courts will not infer it from remedial purpose alone.